Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Mokitimi v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited (2017/49814) [2025] ZAGPJHC 210 (6 March 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application to strike out a summons under rule 30, finding the applicant had not followed the required procedure and the complaints were unsustainable.
First Rand Bank Limited v Masebelanga (16534/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 441 (8 May 2024)
The High Court held that filing two inconsistent pleas was an irregularity under Rule 30 and ordered the defendant to withdraw one plea. Costs were reserved.
Afrocentrics Projects and Services (Pty) Ltd t/a Innovative Distribution v State Information Technology Agency (SITA) SOC Ltd and Others (CCT 54/22) [2023] ZACC 2; 2023 (4) BCLR 361 (CC) (24 January 2023)
The Constitutional Court held that a rule 30 order must clearly dispose of an irregularity. It set aside the vague High Court order and remitted the matter.
Quill Associates (Pty) Limited v Dawid Kruiper Local Municipality (209/2020) [2020] ZANCHC 87 (20 November 2020)
The court dismissed a Rule 30 application challenging the signing of a plea and conditional counterclaim, finding no prejudice and no irregularity warranting relief.
Absa Bank Limited v Makiwane and Others (94888/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 689 (7 September 2018)
The High Court struck out the respondents’ defence under Rule 30 after they pleaded to a simple summons before a declaration was delivered.
Hacker v Hartmann and Others (1415/2017) [2018] ZAECPEHC 15 (19 April 2018)
A High Court Rule 30 application to strike out a late supplementary answering affidavit was dismissed, but the respondents were ordered to pay attorney-and-client costs.
Malebye v Head of the Department of Transport and Roads: North- West Provincial Administration (882/05) [2006] ZANWHC 31 (4 May 2006)
The court condoned prematurely filed answering affidavits in a Rule 53 review, but upheld the Applicant’s objection and ordered the respondents to pay costs.
Explore more
